Articles | Volume 18, issue 18
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6517-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6517-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Methods for assessment of models
| 
29 Sep 2025
Methods for assessment of models |
| 29 Sep 2025
| 29 Sep 2025
OpenBench: a land model evaluation system
Zhongwang Wei
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Qingchen Xu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Fan Bai
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Xionghui Xu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Zixin Wei
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Wenzong Dong
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Hongbin Liang
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Nan Wei
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Xingjie Lu
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Lu Li
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Shupeng Zhang
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Hua Yuan
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Laibao Liu
Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Institute for Climate and Carbon Neutrality, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Yongjiu Dai
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Zhuhai), School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Related authors
Shiao Feng, Wenhong Wang, Yonggen Zhang, Zhongwang Wei, Jianzhi Dong, Lutz Weihermüller, and Harry Vereecken
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture is key for weather, farming, and ecosystems, but global datasets have gaps and biases. We compared three products against 1,615 stations with more than 1.9 million measured moisture, finding ERA5-Land highly correlated but biased high, and SMAP-L4 accurate but short-term. Fusing them created an enhanced dataset, improving correlation by 5%, reducing errors by 20%, and enhancing overall fit by 15%. This seamless resource aids drought tracking, water planning, and climate adaptation.
Chen Yang, Zitong Jia, Wenjie Xu, Zhongwang Wei, Xiaolang Zhang, Yiguang Zou, Jeffrey McDonnell, Laura Condon, Yongjiu Dai, and Reed Maxwell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2201–2218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed the first high-resolution, integrated surface water–groundwater hydrologic model of the entirety of continental China using ParFlow. The model shows good performance in terms of streamflow and water table depth when compared to global data products and observations. It is essential for water resources management and decision-making in China within a consistent framework in the changing world. It also has significant implications for similar modeling in other places in the world.
Gaosong Shi, Wenye Sun, Wei Shangguan, Zhongwang Wei, Hua Yuan, Lu Li, Xiaolin Sun, Ye Zhang, Hongbin Liang, Danxi Li, Feini Huang, Qingliang Li, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 517–543, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed the second version of China's high-resolution soil information grid using legacy soil samples and advanced machine learning. This version predicts over 20 soil properties at six depths, providing accurate soil variation maps across China. It outperforms previous versions and global products, offering valuable data for hydrological and ecological analyses and Earth system modelling, enhancing our understanding of soil roles in environmental processes.
Jiahao Shi, Hua Yuan, Wanyi Lin, Wenzong Dong, Hongbin Liang, Zhuo Liu, Jianxin Zeng, Haolin Zhang, Nan Wei, Zhongwang Wei, Shupeng Zhang, Shaofeng Liu, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 117–134, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Flux tower data are widely recognized as benchmarking data for land surface models, but insufficient emphasis on and deficiency in site attribute data limits their true value. We collect site-observed vegetation, soil, and topography data from various sources. The final dataset encompasses 90 sites globally, with relatively complete site attribute data and high-quality flux validation data. This work has provided more reliable site attribute data, benefiting land surface model development.
Liqing Peng, Justin Sheffield, Zhongwang Wei, Michael Ek, and Eric F. Wood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1277–1300, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Integrating evaporative demand into drought indicators is effective, but the choice of method and the effectiveness of surface features remain undocumented. We evaluate various methods and surface features for predicting soil moisture dynamics. Using minimal ancillary information alongside meteorological and vegetation data, we develop a simple land-cover-based method that improves soil moisture drought predictions, especially in forests, showing promise for better real-time drought forecasting.
Yi Nan, Zhihua He, Fuqiang Tian, Zhongwang Wei, and Lide Tian
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4147–4167, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tracer-aided hydrological models are useful tool to reduce uncertainty of hydrological modeling in cold basins, but there is little guidance on the sampling strategy for isotope analysis, which is important for large mountainous basins. This study evaluated the reliance of the tracer-aided modeling performance on the availability of isotope data in the Yarlung Tsangpo river basin, and provides implications for collecting water isotope data for running tracer-aided hydrological models.
Chen Yang, Aoqi Sun, Shupeng Zhang, Yongjiu Dai, Stefan Kollet, and Reed Maxwell
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3935, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater strongly influences how water and energy move between land and air, yet most large-scale climate and Earth system models treat it too simply. We reviewed 20 years of work combining a detailed groundwater model, ParFlow, with land surface models, showing ways groundwater shapes energy and water cycles. We also updated this model link, improving its performance, and proposed a flexible framework to support future advances.
Lea Maria Gabele, Petra Sieber, Laibao Liu, and Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4215, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4215, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how soil moisture influences the future land carbon sink using dedicated experiments from the latest generation of Earth system models. Our results show that soil moisture strongly reduces land carbon uptake, mainly through soil moisture–atmosphere coupling. However, models disagree on the magnitude of SM impacts. The study emphasises that improving the representation of plant water stress in models is essential to reduce uncertainties in carbon cycle projections.
Shuyang Guo, Yongjiu Dai, Hua Yuan, and Hongbin Liang
The Cryosphere, 19, 3553–3570, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3553-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-3553-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Snow, Ice, and Aerosol Radiation Model version 4 has only been used to evaluate bare-ice albedo in land surface models, with necessary ice property data lacking quality control. We integrated this model into our land surface model and improved bare-ice properties using quality-controlled satellite data. Our findings show regional warming and reduced snow cover in Greenland’s bare-ice region, driven by changes in bare-ice properties through bare-ice–snow albedo feedback.
Shiao Feng, Wenhong Wang, Yonggen Zhang, Zhongwang Wei, Jianzhi Dong, Lutz Weihermüller, and Harry Vereecken
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-410, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture is key for weather, farming, and ecosystems, but global datasets have gaps and biases. We compared three products against 1,615 stations with more than 1.9 million measured moisture, finding ERA5-Land highly correlated but biased high, and SMAP-L4 accurate but short-term. Fusing them created an enhanced dataset, improving correlation by 5%, reducing errors by 20%, and enhancing overall fit by 15%. This seamless resource aids drought tracking, water planning, and climate adaptation.
Shulei Zhang, Hongbin Liang, Fang Li, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 3119–3143, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3119-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-3119-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study enhances irrigation modeling in the Common Land Model by capturing the full irrigation process, detailing water supplies from various sources, and enabling bidirectional coupling between water demand and supply. The proposed model accurately simulates irrigation water withdrawals, energy fluxes, river flow, and crop yields. It offers insights into irrigation-related climate impacts and water scarcity, contributing to sustainable water management and improved Earth system modeling.
Weilin Liao, Yanman Li, Xiaoping Liu, Yuhao Wang, Yangzi Che, Ledi Shao, Guangzhao Chen, Hua Yuan, Ning Zhang, and Fei Chen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2535–2551, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2535-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2535-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The currently available urban canopy parameter (UCP) datasets are limited to just a few cities for urban climate simulations by the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. To address this gap, we develop a global 1 km spatially continuous UCP dataset (GloUCP) which provides superior spatial coverage and higher accuracy in capturing urban morphology across diverse regions. It has great potential to support further advancements in urban climate modeling and related applications.
Chen Yang, Zitong Jia, Wenjie Xu, Zhongwang Wei, Xiaolang Zhang, Yiguang Zou, Jeffrey McDonnell, Laura Condon, Yongjiu Dai, and Reed Maxwell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2201–2218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We developed the first high-resolution, integrated surface water–groundwater hydrologic model of the entirety of continental China using ParFlow. The model shows good performance in terms of streamflow and water table depth when compared to global data products and observations. It is essential for water resources management and decision-making in China within a consistent framework in the changing world. It also has significant implications for similar modeling in other places in the world.
Gaosong Shi, Wenye Sun, Wei Shangguan, Zhongwang Wei, Hua Yuan, Lu Li, Xiaolin Sun, Ye Zhang, Hongbin Liang, Danxi Li, Feini Huang, Qingliang Li, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 517–543, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-517-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed the second version of China's high-resolution soil information grid using legacy soil samples and advanced machine learning. This version predicts over 20 soil properties at six depths, providing accurate soil variation maps across China. It outperforms previous versions and global products, offering valuable data for hydrological and ecological analyses and Earth system modelling, enhancing our understanding of soil roles in environmental processes.
Jiahao Shi, Hua Yuan, Wanyi Lin, Wenzong Dong, Hongbin Liang, Zhuo Liu, Jianxin Zeng, Haolin Zhang, Nan Wei, Zhongwang Wei, Shupeng Zhang, Shaofeng Liu, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 117–134, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Flux tower data are widely recognized as benchmarking data for land surface models, but insufficient emphasis on and deficiency in site attribute data limits their true value. We collect site-observed vegetation, soil, and topography data from various sources. The final dataset encompasses 90 sites globally, with relatively complete site attribute data and high-quality flux validation data. This work has provided more reliable site attribute data, benefiting land surface model development.
Yangzi Che, Xuecao Li, Xiaoping Liu, Yuhao Wang, Weilin Liao, Xianwei Zheng, Xucai Zhang, Xiaocong Xu, Qian Shi, Jiajun Zhu, Honghui Zhang, Hua Yuan, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 5357–5374, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5357-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-5357-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most existing building height products are limited with respect to either spatial resolution or coverage, not to mention the spatial heterogeneity introduced by global building forms. Using Earth Observation (EO) datasets for 2020, we developed a global height dataset at the individual building scale. The dataset provides spatially explicit information on 3D building morphology, supporting both macro- and microanalysis of urban areas.
Liqing Peng, Justin Sheffield, Zhongwang Wei, Michael Ek, and Eric F. Wood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1277–1300, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1277-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Integrating evaporative demand into drought indicators is effective, but the choice of method and the effectiveness of surface features remain undocumented. We evaluate various methods and surface features for predicting soil moisture dynamics. Using minimal ancillary information alongside meteorological and vegetation data, we develop a simple land-cover-based method that improves soil moisture drought predictions, especially in forests, showing promise for better real-time drought forecasting.
Qingliang Li, Gaosong Shi, Wei Shangguan, Vahid Nourani, Jianduo Li, Lu Li, Feini Huang, Ye Zhang, Chunyan Wang, Dagang Wang, Jianxiu Qiu, Xingjie Lu, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 5267–5286, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5267-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5267-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
SMCI1.0 is a 1 km resolution dataset of daily soil moisture over China for 2000–2020 derived through machine learning trained with in situ measurements of 1789 stations, meteorological forcings, and land surface variables. It contains 10 soil layers with 10 cm intervals up to 100 cm deep. Evaluated by in situ data, the error (ubRMSE) ranges from 0.045 to 0.051, and the correlation (R) range is 0.866-0.893. Compared with ERA5-Land, SMAP-L4, and SoMo.ml, SIMI1.0 has higher accuracy and resolution.
Yi Nan, Zhihua He, Fuqiang Tian, Zhongwang Wei, and Lide Tian
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4147–4167, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tracer-aided hydrological models are useful tool to reduce uncertainty of hydrological modeling in cold basins, but there is little guidance on the sampling strategy for isotope analysis, which is important for large mountainous basins. This study evaluated the reliance of the tracer-aided modeling performance on the availability of isotope data in the Yarlung Tsangpo river basin, and provides implications for collecting water isotope data for running tracer-aided hydrological models.
Ziqi Lin, Yongjiu Dai, Umakant Mishra, Guocheng Wang, Wei Shangguan, Wen Zhang, and Zhangcai Qin
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-232, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-232, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Spatial soil organic carbon (SOC) data is critical for predictions in carbon climate feedbacks and future climate trends, but no conclusion has yet been reached on which dataset to be used for specific purposes. We evaluated the SOC estimates from five widely used global soil datasets and a regional permafrost dataset, and identify uncertainties of SOC estimates by region, biome, and data sources, hoping to help improve SOC/soil data in the future.
Shuang Ma, Lifen Jiang, Rachel M. Wilson, Jeff P. Chanton, Scott Bridgham, Shuli Niu, Colleen M. Iversen, Avni Malhotra, Jiang Jiang, Xingjie Lu, Yuanyuan Huang, Jason Keller, Xiaofeng Xu, Daniel M. Ricciuto, Paul J. Hanson, and Yiqi Luo
Biogeosciences, 19, 2245–2262, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-2245-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-2245-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The relative ratio of wetland methane (CH4) emission pathways determines how much CH4 is oxidized before leaving the soil. We found an ebullition modeling approach that has a better performance in deep layer pore water CH4 concentration. We suggest using this approach in land surface models to accurately represent CH4 emission dynamics and response to climate change. Our results also highlight that both CH4 flux and belowground concentration data are important to constrain model parameters.
Yaoping Wang, Jiafu Mao, Mingzhou Jin, Forrest M. Hoffman, Xiaoying Shi, Stan D. Wullschleger, and Yongjiu Dai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4385–4405, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4385-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4385-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We developed seven global soil moisture datasets (1970–2016, monthly, half-degree, and multilayer) by merging a wide range of data sources, including in situ and satellite observations, reanalysis, offline land surface model simulations, and Earth system model simulations. Given the great value of long-term, multilayer, gap-free soil moisture products to climate research and applications, we believe this paper and the presented datasets would be of interest to many different communities.
Fei Jiang, Hengmao Wang, Jing M. Chen, Weimin Ju, Xiangjun Tian, Shuzhuang Feng, Guicai Li, Zhuoqi Chen, Shupeng Zhang, Xuehe Lu, Jane Liu, Haikun Wang, Jun Wang, Wei He, and Mousong Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1963–1985, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1963-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1963-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present a 6-year inversion from 2010 to 2015 for the global and regional carbon fluxes using only the GOSAT XCO2 retrievals. We find that the XCO2 retrievals could significantly improve the modeling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that the inferred interannual variations in the terrestrial carbon fluxes in most land regions have a better relationship with the changes in severe drought area or leaf area index, or are more consistent with the previous estimates about drought impact.
Richard Essery, Hyungjun Kim, Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Claire Brutel-Vuilmet, Eleanor Burke, Matthias Cuntz, Bertrand Decharme, Emanuel Dutra, Xing Fang, Yeugeniy Gusev, Stefan Hagemann, Vanessa Haverd, Anna Kontu, Gerhard Krinner, Matthieu Lafaysse, Yves Lejeune, Thomas Marke, Danny Marks, Christoph Marty, Cecile B. Menard, Olga Nasonova, Tomoko Nitta, John Pomeroy, Gerd Schädler, Vladimir Semenov, Tatiana Smirnova, Sean Swenson, Dmitry Turkov, Nander Wever, and Hua Yuan
The Cryosphere, 14, 4687–4698, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4687-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are uncertain in predicting how warming changes snow cover. This paper compares 22 snow models with the same meteorological inputs. Predicted trends agree with observations at four snow research sites: winter snow cover does not start later, but snow now melts earlier in spring than in the 1980s at two of the sites. Cold regions where snow can last until late summer are predicted to be particularly sensitive to warming because the snow then melts faster at warmer times of year.
Cited articles
Abbaspour, K. C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J., Zobrist, J., and Srinivasan, R.: Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT, J. Hydrol., 333, 413–430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014, 2007.
Appel, K. W., Gilliam, R. C., Davis, N., Zubrow, A., and Howard, S. C.: Overview of the atmospheric model evaluation tool (AMET) v1.1 for evaluating meteorological and air quality models, Environ. Model. Softw., 26, 434–443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.09.007, 2011.
Archdeacon, T. J.: Correlation and regression analysis: a historian's guide, University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 978-0299136543, 1994.
Arora, V. K., Seiler, C., Wang, L., and Kou-Giesbrecht, S.: Towards an ensemble-based evaluation of land surface models in light of uncertain forcings and observations, Biogeosciences, 20, 1313–1355, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1313-2023, 2023.
Bai, F., Wei, Z., Wei, N., Lu, X., Yuan, H., Zhang, S., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Li, X., and Dai, Y.: Global Assessment of Atmospheric Forcing Uncertainties in The Common Land Model 2024 Simulations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2024JD041520, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041520, 2024.
Barrett, J. P.: The coefficient of determination—some limitations, Am. Stat., 28, 19–20, 1974.
Best, M. J., Abramowitz, G., Johnson, H. R., Pitman, A. J., Balsamo, G., Boone, A., Cuntz, M., Decharme, B., Dirmeyer, P. A., Dong, J., Ek, M., Guo, Z., Haverd, V., van den Hurk, B. J. J., Nearing, G. S., Pak, B., Peters-Lidard, C., Santanello, J. A., Stevens, L., and Vuichard, N.: The Plumbing of Land Surface Models: Benchmarking Model Performance, J. Hydrometeorol., 16, 1425–1442, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0158.1, 2015.
Blyth, E. M., Arora, V. K., Clark, D. B., Dadson, S. J., De Kauwe, M. G., Lawrence, D. M., Melton, J. R., Pongratz, J., Turton, R. H., Yoshimura, K., and Yuan, H.: Advances in Land Surface Modelling, Current Climate Change Reports, 7, 45–71, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-021-00171-5, 2021.
Box, G. E.: Use and abuse of regression, Technometrics, 8, 625–629, 1966.
Chen, S., Li, L., Wei, Z., Wei, N., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S., Yuan, H., Shangguan, W., Zhang, S., Li, Q., and Dai, Y.: Exploring Topography Downscaling Methods for Hyper-Resolution Land Surface Modeling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 129, e2024JD041338, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041338, 2024.
Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educational and psychological measurement, 20, 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104, 1960.
Cole, N. S.: Bias in testing, Am. Psychol., 36, 1067, 1981.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) System: Design, Theory, and Implementation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001354, 2018.
Criss, R. E. and Winston, W. E.: Do Nash values have value? Discussion and alternate proposals, Hydrol. Process., 22, 2723–2725, 2008.
Dai, Y., Zeng, X., Dickinson, R. E., Baker, I., Bonan, G. B., Bosilovich, M. G., Denning, A. S., Dirmeyer, P. A., Houser, P. R., Niu, G., Oleson, K. W., Schlosser, C. A., and Yang, Z.-L.: The Common Land Model, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 84, 1013–1024, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-84-8-1013, 2003.
Dawson, C. W., Mount, N. J., Abrahart, R. J., and Shamseldin, A. Y.: Ideal point error for model assessment in data-driven river flow forecasting, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3049–3060, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3049-2012, 2012.
Elson, P., de Andrade, E. S., Lucas, G., May, R., Hattersley, R., Campbell, E., Comer, R., Dawson, A., Little, B., Raynaud, S., scmc72, Snow, A. D., lgolston, Blay, B., Killick, P., lbdreyer, Peglar, P., Wilson, N., Andrew, Szymaniak, J., Berchet, A., Bosley, C., Davis, L., Filipe, Krasting, J., Bradbury, M., stephenworsley, and Kirkham, D.: SciTools/cartopy: REL: v0.24.1, [Software], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13905945, 2024.
Entekhabi, D., Reichle, R. H., Koster, R. D., and Crow, W. T.: Performance Metrics for Soil Moisture Retrievals and Application Requirements, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 832–840, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1223.1, 2010.
Everitt, B. S., and Skrondal, A.: The Cambridge dictionary of statistics, Cambridge university press, ISBN 9780521766999, 2010.
Fan, H., Xu, Q., Bai, F., Wei, Z., Zhang, Y., Lu, X., Wei, N., Zhang, S., Yuan, H., Liu, S., Li, X., Li, X., and Dai, Y.: An Unstructured Mesh Generation Tool for Efficient High-Resolution Representation of Spatial Heterogeneity in Land Surface Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2023GL107059, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL107059, 2024.
Fisher, R. A. and Koven, C. D.: Perspectives on the Future of Land Surface Models and the Challenges of Representing Complex Terrestrial Systems, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2018MS001453, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001453, 2020.
Garcia, F., Folton, N., and Oudin, L.: Which objective function to calibrate rainfall–runoff models for low-flow index simulations?, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 62, 1149–1166, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2017.1308511, 2017.
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009.
Hamman, J. J., Nijssen, B., Bohn, T. J., Gergel, D. R., and Mao, Y.: The Variable Infiltration Capacity model version 5 (VIC-5): infrastructure improvements for new applications and reproducibility, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3481–3496, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3481-2018, 2018.
Hanazaki, R., Yamazaki, D., and Yoshimura, K.: Development of a Reservoir Flood Control Scheme for Global Flood Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 14, e2021MS002944, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002944, 2022.
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., del Río, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., Gérard-Marchant, P., Sheppard, K., Reddy, T., Weckesser, W., Abbasi, H., Gohlke, C., and Oliphant, T. E.: Array programming with NumPy, Nature, 585, 357–362, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2, 2020.
Haverd, V., Smith, B., Nieradzik, L., Briggs, P. R., Woodgate, W., Trudinger, C. M., Canadell, J. G., and Cuntz, M.: A new version of the CABLE land surface model (Subversion revision r4601) incorporating land use and land cover change, woody vegetation demography, and a novel optimisation-based approach to plant coordination of photosynthesis, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2995–3026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2995-2018, 2018.
He, C., Valayamkunnath, P., Barlage, M., Chen, F., Gochis, D., Cabell, R., Schneider, T., Rasmussen, R., Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Niyogi, D., and Ek, M.: Modernizing the open-source community Noah with multi-parameterization options (Noah-MP) land surface model (version 5.0) with enhanced modularity, interoperability, and applicability, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5131–5151, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5131-2023, 2023.
Hobeichi, S., Abramowitz, G., Evans, J., and Beck, H. E.: Linear Optimal Runoff Aggregate (LORA): a global gridded synthesis runoff product, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 851–870, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-851-2019, 2019.
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J.: xarray: ND labeled arrays and datasets in Python, Journal of Open Research Software, 5, 10–10, 2017.
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Computing in science and engineering, 9, 90–95, , https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2007.55, 2007.
Iizumi, T. and Sakai, T.: The global dataset of historical yields for major crops 1981–2016, Scientific Data, 7, 97, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0433-7, 2020.
Jennings, K. S., Winchell, T. S., Livneh, B., and Molotch, N. P.: Spatial variation of the rain–snow temperature threshold across the Northern Hemisphere, Nat. Commun., 9, 1148, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03629-7, 2018.
Jensen, T., Prestopnik, J., Soh, H., Goodrich, L., Brown, B., Bullock, R., Halley Gotway, J., Newman, K., and Opatz, J.: The MET Version 11.1.1 User's Guide, Developmental Testbed Center, 2024.
Joblib, D. T.: Joblib: running Python functions as pipeline jobs, Github [code], https://joblib.readthedocs.io/en/stable/, 2020.
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., Ichii, K., Gans, F., Camps-Valls, G., Papale, D., Schwalm, C., Tramontana, G., and Reichstein, M.: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Scientific Data, 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019.
Kenney, J. F. and Keeping, E.: Root mean square, Mathematics of Statistics, 1, 59–60, 1962.
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. J. Hydrol., 424, 264-277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011, 2012.
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., and Woods, R. A.: Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019.
Krause, P., Boyle, D., and Bäse, F.: Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment, Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89–97, 2005.
Krstic, G., Krstic, N. S., and Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.: The br2–weighting Method for Estimating the Effects of Air Pollution on Population Health, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 15, 42, https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1478004000, 2016.
Kumar, S. V., Peters-Lidard, C. D., Santanello, J., Harrison, K., Liu, Y., and Shaw, M.: Land surface Verification Toolkit (LVT) – a generalized framework for land surface model evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 869–886, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-869-2012, 2012.
Lamontagne, J. R., Barber, C. A., and Vogel, R. M.: Improved Estimators of Model Performance Efficiency for Skewed Hydrologic Data, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2020WR027101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR027101, 2020.
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C., Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P. J., Li, F., Li, H., Lombardozzi, D., Riley, W. J., Sacks, W. J., Shi, M., Vertenstein, M., Wieder, W. R., Xu, C., Ali, A. A., Badger, A. M., Bisht, G., van den Broeke, M., Brunke, M. A., Burns, S. P., Buzan, J., Clark, M., Craig, A., Dahlin, K., Drewniak, B., Fisher, J. B., Flanner, M., Fox, A. M., Gentine, P., Hoffman, F., Keppel-Aleks, G., Knox, R., Kumar, S., Lenaerts, J., Leung, L. R., Lipscomb, W. H., Lu, Y., Pandey, A., Pelletier, J. D., Perket, J., Randerson, J. T., Ricciuto, D. M., Sanderson, B. M., Slater, A., Subin, Z. M., Tang, J., Thomas, R. Q., Val Martin, M., and Zeng, X.: The Community Land Model Version 5: Description of New Features, Benchmarking, and Impact of Forcing Uncertainty, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4245–4287, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001583, 2019.
Lee, J., Gleckler, P. J., Ahn, M.-S., Ordonez, A., Ullrich, P. A., Sperber, K. R., Taylor, K. E., Planton, Y. Y., Guilyardi, E., Durack, P., Bonfils, C., Zelinka, M. D., Chao, L.-W., Dong, B., Doutriaux, C., Zhang, C., Vo, T., Boutte, J., Wehner, M. F., Pendergrass, A. G., Kim, D., Xue, Z., Wittenberg, A. T., and Krasting, J.: Objective Evaluation of Earth System Models: PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP) version 3, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2720, 2023.
Legates, D. R. and McCabe Jr., G. J.: Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35, 233–241, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018, 1999.
Li, C., Han, J., Liu, Z., Tu, Z., and Yang, H.: A harmonized global gridded transpiration product based on collocation analysis, Scientific Data, 11, 604, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03425-7, 2024.
Li, D., Ji, J., and Li, Y.: Climate simulations based on a different-grid nested and coupled model, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 19, 487–499, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-002-0081-1, 2002.
Liang, X.-Z., Xu, M., Yuan, X., Ling, T., Choi, H. I., Zhang, F., Chen, L., Liu, S., Su, S., Qiao, F., He, Y., Wang, J. X. L., Kunkel, K. E., Gao, W., Joseph, E., Morris, V., Yu, T.-W., Dudhia, J., and Michalakes, J.: Regional Climate–Weather Research and Forecasting Model, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1363–1387, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00180.1, 2012.
Liu, L., Fisher, R. A., Douville, H., Padrón, R. S., Berg, A., Mao, J., Alessandri, A., Kim, H., and Seneviratne, S. I.: No constraint on long-term tropical land carbon-climate feedback uncertainties from interannual variability, Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 348, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01504-6, 2024.
Lo, J. C.-F., Yang, Z.-L., and Pielke Sr., R. A.: Assessment of three dynamical climate downscaling methods using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009216, 2008.
Lovie, P.: Coefficient of Variation, in: Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa107, 2005.
Makridakis, S., Andersen, A., Carbone, R., Fildes, R., Hibon, M., Lewandowski, R., Newton, J., Parzen, E., and Winkler, R.: The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition, J. Forecasting, 1, 111–153, https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980010202, 1982.
Manabe, S.: CLIMATE AND THE OCEAN CIRCULATION: I. THE ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION AND THE HYDROLOGY OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE, Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 739–774, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1969)097<0739:CATOC>2.3.CO;2, 1969.
McKinney, W.: Data structures for statistical computing in Python, SciPy, 445, 51–56, 2010.
Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011, 2011.
Mizukami, N., Rakovec, O., Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Wood, A. W., Gupta, H. V., and Kumar, R.: On the choice of calibration metrics for “high-flow” estimation using hydrologic models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2601–2614, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019, 2019.
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Dutra, E., Agustí-Panareda, A., Albergel, C., Arduini, G., Balsamo, G., Boussetta, S., Choulga, M., Harrigan, S., Hersbach, H., Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Piles, M., Rodríguez-Fernández, N. J., Zsoter, E., Buontempo, C., and Thépaut, J.-N.: ERA5-Land: a state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 4349–4383, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-4349-2021, 2021.
Myung, I. J.: Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation, J. Math. Psychol., 47, 90–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2496(02)00028-7, 2003.
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6, 1970.
Nelson, J. A., Walther, S., Gans, F., Kraft, B., Weber, U., Novick, K., Buchmann, N., Migliavacca, M., Wohlfahrt, G., Šigut, L., Ibrom, A., Papale, D., Göckede, M., Duveiller, G., Knohl, A., Hörtnagl, L., Scott, R. L., Zhang, W., Hamdi, Z. M., Reichstein, M., Aranda-Barranco, S., Ardö, J., Op de Beeck, M., Billdesbach, D., Bowling, D., Bracho, R., Brümmer, C., Camps-Valls, G., Chen, S., Cleverly, J. R., Desai, A., Dong, G., El-Madany, T. S., Euskirchen, E. S., Feigenwinter, I., Galvagno, M., Gerosa, G., Gielen, B., Goded, I., Goslee, S., Gough, C. M., Heinesch, B., Ichii, K., Jackowicz-Korczynski, M. A., Klosterhalfen, A., Knox, S., Kobayashi, H., Kohonen, K.-M., Korkiakoski, M., Mammarella, I., Mana, G., Marzuoli, R., Matamala, R., Metzger, S., Montagnani, L., Nicolini, G., O'Halloran, T., Ourcival, J.-M., Peichl, M., Pendall, E., Ruiz Reverter, B., Roland, M., Sabbatini, S., Sachs, T., Schmidt, M., Schwalm, C. R., Shekhar, A., Silberstein, R., Silveira, M. L., Spano, D., Tagesson, T., Tramontana, G., Trotta, C., Turco, F., Vesala, T., Vincke, C., Vitale, D., Vivoni, E. R., Wang, Y., Woodgate, W., Yepez, E. A., Zhang, J., Zona, D., and Jung, M.: X-BASE: the first terrestrial carbon and water flux products from an extended data-driven scaling framework, FLUXCOM-X, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-165, 2024.
Nitta, T., Yoshimura, K., Takata, K., O'ishi, R., Sueyoshi, T., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Abe-Ouchi, A., and Liston, G. E.: Representing Variability in Subgrid Snow Cover and Snow Depth in a Global Land Model: Offline Validation, J. Climate, 27, 3318–3330, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00310.1, 2014.
Olkin, I. and Pratt, J. W.: Unbiased Estimation of Certain Correlation Coefficients, Ann. Math. Stat., 29, 201–211, 1958.
Oleson, K., D. Lawrence, D. Lombardozzi, and W. Wieder: CLM land-only release (using CLM4.0, 4.5, 5.0), NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research [data set], https://doi.org/10.5065/SRTG-H391, 2019.
Pearson, K.: Notes on the History of Correlation, Biometrika, 13, 25–45, https://doi.org/10.2307/2331722, 1920.
Phillips, A. S., Deser, C., and Fasullo, J.: Evaluating Modes of Variability in Climate Models, Eos T. Am. Geophys. Un., 95, 453–455, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EO490002, 2014.
Pizarro, A. and Jorquera, J.: Advancing objective functions in hydrological modelling: Integrating knowable moments for improved simulation accuracy, J. Hydrol., 634, 131071, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.131071, 2024.
Pokhrel, Y. N., Hanasaki, N., Wada, Y., and Kim, H.: Recent progresses in incorporating human land–water management into global land surface models toward their integration into Earth system models, WIREs Water, 3, 548–574, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1150, 2016.
Prigent, C., Jimenez, C., and Bousquet, P.: Satellite-Derived Global Surface Water Extent and Dynamics Over the Last 25 Years (GIEMS-2), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD030711, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030711, 2020.
Rocklin, M.: Dask: Parallel computation with blocked algorithms and task scheduling, SciPy, 126–132, https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-7b98e3ed-013, 2015.
Rodell, M., Houser, P. R., Jambor, U., Gottschalck, J., Mitchell, K., Meng, C.-J., Arsenault, K., Cosgrove, B., Radakovich, J., Bosilovich, M., Entin, J. K., Walker, J. P., Lohmann, D., and Toll, D.: The Global Land Data Assimilation System, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85, 381–394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-3-381, 2004.
Schilperoort, B., Liu, Y., and Doore, K.: xarray-regrid, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10203304, 2024.
Schulzweida, U.: CDO User Guide, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7112925, 2022.
Sorooshian, S., Duan, Q., and Gupta, V. K.: Calibration of rainfall-runoff models: Application of global optimization to the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model, Water Resour. Res., 29, 1185–1194, https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR02617, 1993.
Spearman, C.: “General Intelligence” Objectively Determined and Measured, Studies in individual differences: The search for intelligence, 59–73, https://doi.org/10.1037/11491-006, 1961.
Stephen, K. D. and Kazemi, A.: Improved normalization of time-lapse seismic data using normalized root mean square repeatability data to improve automatic production and seismic history matching in the Nelson field, Geophys. Prospect., 62, 1009–1027, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12109, 2014.
Ukkola, A. M., Abramowitz, G., and De Kauwe, M. G.: A flux tower dataset tailored for land model evaluation, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 449–461, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-449-2022, 2022.
van den Hurk, B., Kim, H., Krinner, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Derksen, C., Oki, T., Douville, H., Colin, J., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Viovy, N., Puma, M. J., Wada, Y., Li, W., Jia, B., Alessandri, A., Lawrence, D. M., Weedon, G. P., Ellis, R., Hagemann, S., Mao, J., Flanner, M. G., Zampieri, M., Materia, S., Law, R. M., and Sheffield, J.: LS3MIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: the Land Surface, Snow and Soil moisture Model Intercomparison Project – aims, setup and expected outcome, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2809–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2809-2016, 2016.
Varquez, A. C. G., Kiyomoto, S., Khanh, D. N., and Kanda, M.: Global 1-km present and future hourly anthropogenic heat flux, Scientific Data, 8, 64, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00850-w, 2021.
Verseghy, D. L.: Class—A Canadian land surface scheme for GCMS. I. Soil model, Int. J. Climatol., 11, 111–133, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370110202, 1991.
Ward, N. D., Megonigal, J. P., Bond-Lamberty, B., Bailey, V. L., Butman, D., Canuel, E. A., Diefenderfer, H., Ganju, N. K., Goñi, M. A., Graham, E. B., Hopkinson, C. S., Khangaonkar, T., Langley, J. A., McDowell, N. G., Myers-Pigg, A. N., Neumann, R. B., Osburn, C. L., Price, R. M., Rowland, J., Sengupta, A., Simard, M., Thornton, P. E., Tzortziou, M., Vargas, R., Weisenhorn, P. B., and Windham-Myers, L.: Representing the function and sensitivity of coastal interfaces in Earth system models, Nat. Commun., 11, 2458, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16236-2, 2020.
Wartenburger, R., Seneviratne, S. I., Hirschi, M., Chang, J., Ciais, P., Deryng, D., Elliott, J., Folberth, C., Gosling, S. N., Gudmundsson, L., Henrot, A.-J., Hickler, T., Ito, A., Khabarov, N., Kim, H., Leng, G., Liu, J., Liu, X., Masaki, Y., Morfopoulos, C., Müller, C., Schmied, H. M., Nishina, K., Orth, R., Pokhrel, Y., Pugh, T. A. M., Satoh, Y., Schaphoff, S., Schmid, E., Sheffield, J., Stacke, T., Steinkamp, J., Tang, Q., Thiery, W., Wada, Y., Wang, X., Weedon, G. P., Yang, H., and Zhou, T.: Evapotranspiration simulations in ISIMIP2a—Evaluation of spatio-temporal characteristics with a comprehensive ensemble of independent datasets, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 075001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac4bb, 2018.
Wei, Z.: Cases data and high quality figures of “OpenBench: a land models evaluation system”, [data set], Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15608222, 2025a.
Wei, Z.: The Open Source Land Surface Model Benchmarking System, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15811122, 2025b.
Wei, Z.: The Common Land Model Version 202X (CoLM202X), [Code], Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17120235, 2025c
Wei, Z., He, X., Zhang, Y., Pan, M., Sheffield, J., Peng, L., Yamazaki, D., Moiz, A., Liu, Y., and Ikeuchi, K.: Identification of uncertainty sources in quasi-global discharge and inundation simulations using satellite-based precipitation products, J. Hydrol., 589, 125180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125180, 2020.
Weigel, K., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Adeniyi, K., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Berg, P., Caron, L.-P., Cionni, I., Corti, S., Drost, N., Hunter, A., Lledó, L., Mohr, C. W., Paçal, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Predoi, V., Sandstad, M., Sillmann, J., Sterl, A., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., and Eyring, V.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021.
Willmott, C. J., Robeson, S. M., and Matsuura, K.: A refined index of model performance, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 2088–2094, 2012.
Xu, Q., Li, L., Wei, Z., Lu, X., Wei, N., Lee, X., and Dai, Y.: A multimodal machine learning fused global 0.1° daily evapotranspiration dataset from 1950–2022, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 372, 110645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110645, 2025.
Yamazaki, D., de Almeida, G. A. M., and Bates, P. D.: Improving computational efficiency in global river models by implementing the local inertial flow equation and a vector-based river network map, Water Resour. Res., 49, 7221–7235, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20552, 2013.
Yang, Y., Pan, M., Lin, P., Beck, H. E., Zeng, Z., Yamazaki, D., David, C. H., Lu, H., Yang, K., Hong, Y., and Wood, E. F.: Global Reach-Level 3-Hourly River Flood Reanalysis (1980–2019), B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 102, E2086–E2105, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-20-0057.1, 2021.
Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data, J. Hydrol., 181, 23–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02918-4, 1996.
Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006716, 2008.
Zambrano-Bigiarini, M. and Bellin, A.: Comparing Goodness-of-fit Measures for Calibration of Models Focused on Extreme Events, Geophysical Research Abstracts, EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, 11549, 2012.
Zhang, C., Golaz, J.-C., Forsyth, R., Vo, T., Xie, S., Shaheen, Z., Potter, G. L., Asay-Davis, X. S., Zender, C. S., Lin, W., Chen, C.-C., Terai, C. R., Mahajan, S., Zhou, T., Balaguru, K., Tang, Q., Tao, C., Zhang, Y., Emmenegger, T., Burrows, S., and Ullrich, P. A.: The E3SM Diagnostics Package (E3SM Diags v2.7): a Python-based diagnostics package for Earth system model evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9031–9056, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9031-2022, 2022.
Zhang, M.-Z., Xu, Z., Han, Y., and Guo, W.: An improved multivariable integrated evaluation method and tool (MVIETool) v1.0 for multimodel intercomparison, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3079–3094, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3079-2021, 2021.
Zhou, J., Xia, J., Wei, N., Liu, Y., Bian, C., Bai, Y., and Luo, Y.: A traceability analysis system for model evaluation on land carbon dynamics: design and applications, Ecological Processes, 10, 12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-021-00281-w, 2021.
Zhou, X., Yamazaki, D., Revel, M., Zhao, G., and Modi, P.: Benchmark framework for global river model (Version 1.0), Authorea Preprints, 2024.
Zhuang, J., Dussin, R., Huard, D., Bourgault, P., Banihirwe, A., Raynaud, S., Malevich, B., Schupfner, M., Filipe, Levang, S., Jüling, A., Almansi, M., RichardScottOz, RondeauG, Rasp, S., Smith, T. J., Stachelek, J., Plough, M., Pierre, Bell, R., and Li, X.: pangeo-data/xESMF: v0.7.1, Zenodo [dataset], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4294774, 2023.
Short summary
Land surface models are used for simulating how Earth's surface interacts with the atmosphere. As models grow more complex and detailed, researchers need better tools to evaluate their performance. OpenBench, a new software system that makes the evaluation process more comprehensive and efficient, stands out by incorporating various factors and working with data at any scale, enabling scientists to incorporate new types of models and measurements as our understanding of Earth's systems evolves.
Land surface models are used for simulating how Earth's surface interacts with the atmosphere....
